Impact of Task-based and Task-supported L2 Teaching on the Use of Connective Markers in Learners’ Written Performance
Abstract
The current study investigates the impact of two types of instruction on teaching connective markers in learners' written performance. 82 EFL learners were assigned to two experimental groups (EG1, N = 29 and EG2, N = 25) and one control group (CG, N = 28). The experimental groups were introduced to a set of connective markers in two sessions. EG1 followed a task-based approach, while EG2 experienced task-supported language teaching. CG took part in regular classes that were not intended to teach connective markers. The analysis of variance showed that instruction in both experimental groups positively impacted the number and quality of connective markers used in learners' for-and-against essays, with a slight but non-significant advantage of TBLT in the delayed post-test. The study is timely in that it addresses a still inconclusive line of research on L2 pragmatics instruction, investigates the thriving area of task-based teaching, and employs the most often-used type of essay on a nationwide secondary school-leaving examination.
Keywords
L2 pragmatics; TBLT; TSLT; connective markers
References
Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). Effects of task-supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 55–81). John Benjamins.
Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590647
Asadi, A. (2018). Enhancing writing skills of English learners through metadiscourse. MexTESOL Journal, 11(2), 1–13.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Cheng, A., & Tsang, A. (2022). Use and understanding of connectives: An embedded case study of ESL learners of different proficiency levels. Language Awareness, 31(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1871912
Chiang, S. Y. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31(4), 471–484.
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
Cutting, J., Fordyce, K. (2021). Pragmatics. 4th edition. Routledge.
Darwish, H. (2019). Writer-reader interaction: Writer’s stance in English L1 and L2. A doctoral thesis at the University of Bedfordshire. Retrieved from https://uobrep.openrepository.com/uobrep/bitstream/10547/623581/1/DARWISH_REPOSITORY+VERSION.pdf
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623–636.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2021). Exploring the relationship between TBLT and ISLA. Journal on task-based language teaching, 1(1), 47–70.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley.
Long, M., & Ahmadian, M. J. (2022). Preface. The origins and growth of task-based language teaching. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. xxv–xxxii). Cambridge University Press.
Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H., & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1645227
Lu, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Chinese connectives by second language learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.yzx6jies
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.010
Nguyen, T. T. M., & Le, V. C. (2019). Teaching pragmatics in EFL classrooms. Jakarta: The Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN).
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2020). Introducing pragmatics in use. 2nd edition. Routledge.
Pawlak, M. (2022). Psychology of learning versus acquisition. In: T. Gregersen & S. Mercer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching (pp. 406–418). Routledge.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.
Ren, W., Li, S., & Lü, X. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of second language pragmatics instruction. Applied Linguistics, XX/XX, 1–21.
Roever, C. (2022). Teaching and testing second language pragmatics in interaction. Routledge.
Sarani, A., & Talati-Baghsiahi, A. (2017). Explicit instruction of pragmatic features: Its impact on EFL learners’ knowledge of hedging devices in academic writing. Issues in Language Teaching, 6(1), 29–53.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Shahriari, H., & Shadloo, F. (2019). Interaction in argumentative essays: The case of engagement. Discourse and Interaction, 12(1), 96–110.
Shehadeh, A. (2019). Foreword: New frontiers in task-based language teaching research. In J. Ahmadian & M. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent Perspectives on TaskBased Language Learning and Teaching (pp. vii–xxi). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399
Spada, N. M., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. An overview. In: N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2022). How to teach an additional language. To task or not to task? Amsterdam/ Philadpelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456.
Williams, J. M. (2012). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Longman.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.
Wishnoff, J. R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 18(2), 95–123.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23, 31–48.
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95.
Stanisław Staszic University of Applied Sciences in Piła Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9220-3870
Stanisław Staszic University of Applied Sciences in Piła Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5172-4920
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
